The evidence for Evolution.

[HitchSlap]

My world is a little bigger, thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[MariaJLM]

There's a serious problem within Christianity when I read threads like this and find myself siding with the atheists more than I do the Christians...

 

[dad]

You're welcome.

Cheers

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think the problem is that Iconoclast, like many creationists, was attracted by the popular usage of the term "random" which, unlike the scientific usage, includes an implication of purposelessness. He thus allows himself to imagine that "random" (as in "random variation and natural selection") is an explicit denial of the existence of God.

Yes, but if he doesn't say what the problem is, we can't properly address it - for example, I don't see why his God couldn't have made randomness, of whatever description, part of his creation...

 

[dad]

Yes, but if he doesn't say what the problem is, we can't properly address it - for example, I don't see why his God couldn't have made randomness, of whatever description, part of his creation...

" adjective
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:the
random selection of numbers."

God created deliberately and with aim and purpose. Much of what appears random to science is because they are not able to realize there is more at work than they see.

 

[HitchSlap]

God created deliberately and with aim and purpose. Much of what appears random to science is because they are not able to realize there is more at work than they see.

This is nice and all, can can you support this with evidence? Otherwise this just comes across as an opinion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God created deliberately and with aim and purpose. Much of what appears random to science is because they are not able to realize there is more at work than they see.

There you are, you see - as I said, Iconoclast has nothing to worry about - with God, even randomness can be purposeful; it's truly an explanation for everything - although that dilutes the meaning of 'explanation' to homeopathic levels... 'label' might be more suitable

 

[dad]

This is nice and all, can can you support this with evidence? Otherwise this just comes across as an opinion.

The evidence for God and Scripture is overwhelming and time tested. God says man can't know the beginning or end, and so it is tested. As for somehow testing whether science knows it all about what all exists out there, we know it only deals with the physical. That relegates it to basically sitting in the corner with the dunce cap on.

 

[dad]

There you are, you see - as I said, Iconoclast has nothing to worry about - with God, even randomness can be purposeful; it's truly an explanation for everything - although that dilutes the meaning of 'explanation' to homeopathic levels... 'label' might be more suitable

Of course believers have nothing to worry about from the limitations and small abilities and scope of so called science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for God and Scripture is overwhelming and time tested. God says man can't know the beginning or end, and so it is tested. As for somehow testing whether science knows it all about what all exists out there, we know it only deals with the physical. That relegates it to basically sitting in the corner with the dunce cap on.

Really? Then why don't you ever post any evidence for God?

And you do not appear to understand the nature of what being tested is. Nor do you seem to understand how science is done either. Would you like to learn?

 

[pitabread]

As for somehow testing whether science knows it all about what all exists out there, we know it only deals with the physical. That relegates it to basically sitting in the corner with the dunce cap on.

Creationists love to keep bad-mouthing science on this forum, yet none will give up the advancements it has brought.

Seems hypocritical.

 

[dad]

Really? Then why don't you ever post any evidence for God?

And you do not appear to understand the nature of what being tested is. Nor do you seem to understand how science is done either. Would you like to learn?

1Co 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[dad]

Creationists love to keep bad-mouthing science on this forum, yet none will give up the advancements it has brought.

Seems hypocritical.

So called science disciples love to pretend that their malevolent pipe dreams are somehow connect to the real world, yet they cannot establish even some remote linkup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1Co 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now it appears that you are calling yourself the "natural man". I can help you understand the verses that you are having a problem with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So called science disciples love to pretend that their malevolent pipe dreams are somehow connect to the real world, yet they cannot establish even some remote linkup.

Now you have to know that is not true. You see how you are reading what I wrote. That is the product of the science that you deny. It is rather ironic that you have to demonstrate that you are wrong to even communicate here.

 

[dad]

Now it appears that you are calling yourself the "natural man". I can help you understand the verses that you are having a problem with.

1Jo 4:4 - Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

 

[dad]

Now you have to know that is not true. You see how you are reading what I wrote. That is the product of the science that you deny. It is rather ironic that you have to demonstrate that you are wrong to even communicate here.

Jude 1:8 - Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jude 1:8 - Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

I see that you are totally confused. Don't worry. I W will be glad to help.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am constantly amazed at how creationists try to tell their version of God how he had to make the world. Or how he had to act as if there were a flood.

Would you just rather we give you the raw data (i.e., the pertinent verses) and let you figure it out?

Or do you want us to interpret those verses for you to the best of our ability?

I mean, if you're going to complain about it, let's see your interpretation.

Or, as I suspect, will your interpretation be the same as the interpretation that others have?

 

[The Barbarian]

Would you just rather we give you the raw data (i.e., the pertinent verses) and let you figure it out?

Or do you want us to interpret those verses for you to the best of our ability?

That "interpretation", which gives YE creationists results contrary to His word, is the problem.